Pages

June 04, 2017

Inability to prove something is a symptom of consistency

9 hours ago - Sri Aurobindo does not present this as a complete answer to the question of pain. This is the temporary role that pain plays in our life. As I said, as long as we are in the realm of ignorance, in life as we see, there are ...

16 hours ago - The reason of this problem has beautifully been explained by the Mother (spiritual collaborator of Sri Aurobindo). She said, “The first and principal article of these established and formal religions runs always ...

Introduction. 8.1.1. auRobInDo. to. LaubsCheRVIa. gRaVes,. beCk. anD. wILbeR. Interestingly enough, as we have seen, Sri Aurobindo (late 1800s and early 1900s) was a political activist for the first part of his adult life, and then a spiritual leader in the second half, well into midlife and maturity. Seemingly, for this marriage of ...

He felt that the role of education should be to nurture and enhance these God-given qualities. This book throws light on Sri Aurobindo Ghosh Life. This is a biographical sketch for readers.

...

Dear Dr Manuel,

Thank you very much for your attention

Science has no idea what the universe is made of and there is also no explanation for how the Big Bang could suddenly arise from nothing or where the energy for inflation (a very short period of rapid growth in the early universe) came from. Furthermore, science does not know ‘what is dark matter’ and ‘what is dark energy’, yet they account for 95% of the energy content of the universe. Ignoring that entire headache of cosmologists, we also know that confirmation bias is the effect where scientists tend to construe data in a manner that leads to a selection of data that they feel authenticates their current beliefs. Your present stand seems to be an outcome of that confirmation bias because you seem to ignore completely the questions that are being raised.

We do not see in nature where unseen waves or subatomic stuff getting assembled into nucleuses and atoms. We know that there are atoms but we do not have any justification for the view that atoms can arrange themselves somehow to create all the complex organic stuff that we see in all the living organisms. Even if we agree that somehow the complex molecules came from some permutation and combinations of atoms, still it does not say how those molecules can assemble themselves into a living cell. More bizarre is the claim that somehow first cell appeared from the push and pulls of atoms and then that cell transformed into all different life forms. At least some sanity is necessary in such radical claims and we do not even see that among those who are only busy in imagining castle in the sky. It may be so that an atom may have its own dormant life and it may be also true that the celestial objects like Earth, Sun, Moon, etc. are indeed personalities. Forget about Sun, even all life forms produce so many atoms, even a cell does that. But, we ignore in modern science the spiritual self in the living organisms and focus on just chemical stuff that their bodies made of. Similarly science does not see the spiritual life principle that is the basis of entire reality.

With Best Regards

Dr Shilpi Saxena, MRSC, Ph.D, FICCE

Women Scientist-DST

Ex-Executive Member of Board of INC-IAH (United Kingdom)

University of Delhi, Delhi-110007

June 4, 2017

...

That is why my solution presumes starting from constructing a special meta-theory (or, the MT-level intellectual product), and only then, within the limits of this new meta-theory, we may construct the required applied theory of consciousness. And only then we become able to generalize and systematize private research data on studying the consciousness-related phenomena (like the cases of telepathy), and to assess/account for the results of experiments and simple observations.

In other words, the possibility of constructing an effective a theory of consciousness DOES NOT depend on whether the outcomes of studying the cases of telepathy (and/or other consciousness-related phenomena) will be replicated or not.

It looks very nice. Of course, something has to be ultimately real, if only to be able to prove Gödel's theorem. In fact, the inability to prove something is a symptom of consistency, and the inability to prove our own consistency is a symptom of our intrinsic modesty when we are consistent. Eventually, Gödel's theorem does not impact on mathematics, only on metaphysics and (machine) religion. And, yes, it brings some sense of humor there. It makes the machine's illumination akin to the understanding of a joke, a cosmic/divine one, perhaps.

Bruno

June 4, 2017

...

An abstract notion of space (and spacetime) is born out of this process. Euclid’s space is experiential space supplemented by Pythagorus and the Reals; Galileo’s and Newton’s space and time are Euclid’s space coordinated with sequential but separately defined time; Einstein’s spacetime coordinates space and time through the function of the visual sense, and so on (but no one to my knowledge has attempted to develop a physics based on the other senses, haptic, auditory, etc.).

Others (who I mentioned in the message you are referring to) have tried to take a step back from the constructive narrative of Euclid and successors to see what the result might be. But that stepping back has so far been very tentative.